"Non-alignment came to symbolize the struggle of India and other newly independent nations to retain and strengthen their independence from colonialism and imperialism." Critically examine.

Answer:

Non-alignment expressed the determination of newly independent states to preserve real sovereignty in a world divided between two armed blocs, and it became the symbol of their struggle against continuing colonial and imperial domination.

The meaning and rationale

• It meant independent judgement on each issue, not neutrality or passivity.
• Alignment would have meant exchanging colonial subordination for Cold War dependence.
• It preserved freedom of action in foreign policy and freedom to seek aid from both blocs.
• It allowed newly independent states to concentrate resources on development.

Institutional expression

• Panchsheel (1954) enunciated the principles of peaceful coexistence.
• The Bandung Conference of 1955 gave Afro-Asian solidarity its first great platform.
• The Belgrade Conference of 1961 formally founded the Non-Aligned Movement.
• Nehru, Nasser, Tito, Sukarno and Nkrumah were its principal architects.
• It campaigned against apartheid, for decolonisation and for a fairer economic order.

Critical qualifications

• Critics called it opportunistic, allowing states to draw aid from both sides.
• Members were often drawn into superpower alignments in practice, as India was after 1971.
• The movement's cohesion was strained by wars among its own members.

The statement is thus broadly valid. Non-alignment was, as its founders intended, the diplomatic assertion of hard-won independence and a collective voice for the decolonised world. As historians note, its practical record was uneven, yet it gave the new nations an autonomy in world affairs they could not otherwise have claimed.